More Teach First graduates

A teacher training programme that fast-tracks graduates into low decile schools has been extended to help ease teacher supply issues.

Teach First, a programme developed by the University of Auckland and the Teach First NZ Trust, recruits high-calibre graduates to do an intensive eight week course before starting work in low decile schools where they’re bonded for two years.

Education Minister Hekia Parata has extended the programme for another three years to train 40 new secondary school teachers and an additional ten places focused on science, technology and maths, which are subject shortage areas.

Great. The US programme this is based on has been a huge success at getting motivated young graduates into schools with under-privileged children.

DJP6-25

waikatosinger

Teach First does seem to be working OK, however I wish people wouldn’t be quite so Rah Rah about just copying everything they do in the US. The US education system is very different from ours and they have a lot of problems over there that we simply don’t have. Inner city schools in the US are a mess, and they have huge difficulties getting qualified teachers in those schools, particular qualified teachers in technical subjects where they have a shortage. That is the problem that teach first was designed to address and we just don’t have that problem. There is no NZ equivalent to their inner city schools. Nor do we have a shortage of qualified teachers in technical subjects. We are applying a solution designed in the US for a serious problem that we just don’t have.

So when I say it seems to be working what do I mean? What New Zealand problem is it fixing? We seem to be using teach first mainly as a way of training teachers more cheaply. It does seem to be doing an OK job at that. But you have to bear in mind, that is not what the program was designed for. We took a cancer medicine when we didn’t have cancer. Luckily for us it seems to be doing an OK job at clearing up our athlete’s foot.

Disaster Area

cmm

@waikatosinger:

“Nor do we have a shortage of qualified teachers in technical subjects. ”

I heard there was a huge shortage of maths and science teachers because maths and science grads can get better paying jobs in industry. The unions want everyone to be paid the same which is fine for attracting history of basketweaving teachers (who have nowhere else to sell their skills) but is a problem for those with worhtwhile skills.

But since maths and science grads are already desired by industry they’d be less drawn to one of these Teach First programs.

Looking at their promotional material seems to back this up. Lots of English and Maori langugae grads (useless skills in the marketplace), not so many maths/science.

Disaster Area

It makes you wonder why more people don’t become teachers: we only work between 9 and 3, everyone is already an expert on all matters education so there’s no need for training, it doesn’t matter how well you do your job as rubbish teachers are unsackable and we have 52 weeks holiday a year and (don’t tell anyone this) I have an unlimited supply of whiteboard markers.

burt

jawnbc

The resources per student-teacher for this programme make it a massive, wasteful resource suck. And like similar programmes in the US, within 5 years few of these people will still be teachers…at least in NZ, with the shitty wages on offer.

burt

Disaster Area

Burt,
Top of the pay scale is $78,000, which isn’t too shabby. The private school I worked for ‘beat’ the state pay by 10%, and they seemed surprised when I took a pay cut to work in a state school. Then I took another pay cut to move to my present school. Sometimes quality of life trumps money.

At the moment the PPTA are concerned about the return of bulk funding, which will remove the ring fencing around staff salaries. If that goes ahead, I think we may see movement in teaching salaries and I’ll bet that it isn’t upwards. I suspect that, like the UK, suddenly inexperienced teachers will be appointed instead of older staff.

burt

Disaster Area

Good morning Burt,
Salary negotiations form only part of the reason I belong to the union.

I have no doubt that I could bargain with the Chair of my BoT, which may get me more money. However, the main advantage of being in the union is the bargaining power over my terms and conditions of employment which, on a day to day basis, are more important to me. I do not believe that the Government (of any party, but especially National) would hesitate to gut the provisions of the collective agreement if they thought they could. As an individual my voice would be very much weaker than as part of the union. I realise that this doesn’t receive any publicity, but before the ratification of each agreement, the Branch members get to see what the deal is. Every time there is some attempt to undo some provision in the previous agreement. As a collective, we have had the critical mass to resist this on several quite big changes that were proposed but detrimental to the profession.

As for my decision to leave the private school, I chose terms and conditions over salary because even though the employment agreement was better financially, it couldn’t compensate for the trade off in conditions. Do I know that the people on the PPTA executive get a good salary and perks? Yes, and as the saying goes, I don’t want monkeys because I pay peanuts.

I don’t agree with everything the PPTA says or does, but considering what I think would happen to the profession without it, to me it’s a no-brainer. There is not a credible alternative who is able to speak up for the profession with the authority of being made up of practicing teachers.

I appreciate that we are probably not going to agree over this, but I thought I’d take the time to try and explain my thought process. Have a great day. DA
P.s. is there actually a bricklayers union?